[bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom line
- From: "Merrill Louise" <STARBASEWILDGOOSE@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:09:23 -0400
I don't think the issue here is validation. The minimal requirements make
sense to me. I think the real issue here is scanning. The scanner has the
printed book which, in the end, is the final arbiter of what the text says.
I think it is the scanner's responsibility to provide a readable book and to
do the leg work to make it that way. I don't think the anger I'm reading is
properly directed at the "powers that be" at bookshare.org. I think it is
the submitter who bears the all the responsibility. As a subscriber, I can
choose not to read books with a fair rating and only read books with an
excellent rating.
Merrill Louise, Pastor
The Judson Fellowship
Jamestown, New York
cell/office 716.969.2840
"With all my heart I praise the Lord, and I am glad because of God my
Savior. (Luke 1:46-47)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Silvara" <silvara@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 10:38 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom line
> I have a couple of points that I'd like to discuss.
> What is readable is very subjective. As you stated Mary, what is
considered
> readable to one person can be totally frustrating for another. The
example
> about the term paper perfectly illustrates my feelings in this matter. I
> too, would like to know if it's possible to raise the quality standards
for
> bookshare. I totally love this idea of bookshare and how we can have
instant
> access to a wide variety of books. But I strongly feel that quality is
> important. After all, bookshare is not a free service. If we don't pay
> cash, we pay with our time.
>
> About 3 months ago I noticed that there were a lot of books waiting to be
> validated. Thus, over the past 3 months I've spent a lot of my free time
> validating. I've validated thirty something books during this period. I
> spent time doing some basic cleaning up so that these books could be even
> better. However, the comments by the powers-that- be, during this week
has
> lead me to feel that my efforts to improve the books were a waste of my
> time, and worse, not appreciated. I can not consciously approve books
> knowing that with a little extra time spent on the clean up process, the
> book's quality can approach near-perfection. Thus, the result is that I
> will have to think about how much time I want to devote to bookshare in
the
> future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 8:03 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Requirements for acceptance -- the bottom
line
>
>
> > Ah yes. the notion of what is readable is the rub in all of this.
Richard,
> I love your idea about the volunteers and validating.
> > But getting back to the idea of readable, consider, if you will, what
> would happen to you if you turned in a term paper, let's not even discuss
a
> thesis or dissertation, just a garden variety term paper, and that paper
had
> > a bunch of cross-outs, scribblings, maybe a few coffee stains obscuring
> some of the text. What are the chances, do you suppose, that you would get
> anything but an F on that messy paper, 95 or even 98 percent of
> > which might be perfectly readable? Why the heck should people pay for
> anything less than the high end of "good" quality? Why shouldn't we as
> submitters of materials take enough pride in what we submit to want to
> > make it truly readable, i.e. containing some errors, but not so many
that
> the meaning of entire passages is garbled? Obviously, if you have an old
> book with a bad font that just won't ocr well, there's not a lot you can
> > do. I've got such a book that I keep trying, hoping that the next
> iteration of K1k will unlock the key to the crummy Soviet-era font and
paper
> on which the book was printed, so that I can actually enjoy reading the
> > book myself and have a decent enough scan to post for anybody else crazy
> enough to want to read this particular volume. <smile>
> > Somebody posted a question asking about how the standards were decided
> upon, or words to that effect. I too would be interested in that, and
would
> like to know if there is anything that we can do to revisit the issue
> > and get them raised. The word "readable" means very different things to
> different people, it would seem. Otherwise, we wouldn't have titles on the
> system with portions that are totally garbled and not at all readable.
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
